larry: there's a general problem ("how to associate meaning with a URI") and specific mechanisms ("303 Redirect") and the two are intertwined but...

noah: some of this was raised under issue-14

jar: Went back and read minutes of March 2002
... When Tim framed the problem, 'what is the range of HTTP dereference' was raised perhaps ironically
... Larry was right! The "real issue" was "How is meaning associated with a URI", and the "http range" issue was subsidiary to that

Noah: I came into that discussion with a different view of "representation"
... I don't think it's fair to say that (broad range of views) were represented

JAR: more interesting to look at what people want to do

noah: prior discussion was under certain issues, we should reuse issue numbers for tracking

jar: it is my preference to have a new issue

<NoahM> LM: The general issue is how we associate "meaning" with URIs

<jar> maybe new issue title - associating meaning with uris

<NoahM> LM: tdb scheme then becomes a TAG topic as a possible mechanism

<NoahM> LM: I meant the tdb/duri document as a contribution representing not necessarily the right mechanism, but at least an alternative mechanism

lm: it may be that different mechanisms are appropriate at different times

<noah> LM: I have discussed with application area directors and have engaged with Michelle Cotton who runs IANA

LM: We discussed registration issues relating to MIME types, etc. Aim is to raise awareness, engage conversation. These are copied to www-tag list.
... There is important discussion to be had regarding both architecture and process

<noah> LM: Part of the presentation should be, how do we want to work with IETF and IAB in the future.

<noah> Noah hopes Henry will see that in the minutes of this telcon.

<noah> LM: Noah, what should slide 8 say?

<noah> LM: Example, there is an IAB document on protocol extensibilty. I thought it was interesting, and interestingly different from where we went with our own versioning discussion.

<noah> Welcome Henry.

noah: Larry's been working as human cross-reference, we should handle this more regularly

<noah> LM: There is a liaison effort, but not TAG or IAB focused.

noah: DanC used to be active in IETF/W3C coordination

<noah> NM: Yeah, part of the way we used to cover that was with Dan Connolly's participation?

<noah> LM: TAG meeting near IETF sometime?

lm: joint phone call, etc?

<noah> LM: When I look at what John Peterson's email was asking, it's primarily technical

<noah> HT: Yes, but we agreed we needed some background as well.

<noah> LM: Yes, agreed.

lm: I think we can summarize our understanding of the problem, and note the kinds of solutions we're talking about

<noah> LM: We spend a lot of time talking about semantics, URIs and meaning, etc. We aren't talking about that. Why not in this presentation?

<noah> HT: Wasn't convinced they'd be interested, or stated differently, those who are interested there are already engaged (e.g. Mark Nottingham)

<noah> LM: But I think it's important that they understand why we care, or why it might have impact.

<noah> HT: Fair enough.

<noah> LM: Frame as: we're not making random suggestions. Semantic Web is important for linking data and not just documents, understanding what data is about, etc. W3C is working on this, and IETF mostly isn't.

<noah> LM: There may be some other things under the banner "things you should be glad we're working on"

lm: When we tell HTTP we want some changes to specs, or want IANA to maintain stable URIs ... why do we care? What is this about?

noah: applications link to documents; sometimes apps looks like apps, and sometimes apps look like documents that just are implemented as apps
... these things have architectural impact